There are different reasons people use Unix-like operating systems, including configurable, availability free of charge, powerful command line interface an many more. Some people are motivated by the moral issue: they reject non-free software. Specifically for such users Free Software Foundation developed Guidelines for Free System Distributions and created the list of absolutely free ("as in freedom") distributions. In this article we are going to look at the most recent entry on the list - Parabola GNU/Linux.

"...Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding...."

The GPL is especially harmful against aspiring software developers. With BSD, you can take it, make it better, and sell it. Not with the GPL. (yes, you can sell it, but soon you will compete against a free as in beer modified version of your own program) For a small company, the best way to make money is selling licenses, the whole “make money through services” works best with big companies.

This is essentially what Oracle are doing with Unbreakable Linux, sell a RHEL but rebadged at a lower cost.

A less publicized and unintended use of the GPL is that it is very favorable to large companies that want to undercut software companies. In other words, the GPL is well suited for use as a marketing weapon, potentially reducing overall economic benefit and contributing to monopolistic behavior.

Well, at least these are arguments based on the facts. Having Free/Open source software no more guarantees a profit than closed source software.

Oracle is actually a poor choice for a comparison, they are really going to differentiate their linux offering from RHEL ( BTRFS, DTrace, ect).

A better example is Xfree86. They developed the first open source x11 server, only to have the industry take what they did and improve it 10 fold without their input after they had a hissy fit over licensing. However, I don't think they would have been as big as they were had it not been Open source in the first place. Those willing to plumb the depths of video card hardware wouldn't be willing to contribute it freely to a non free project, and I don't think a single company would have paid them to do it.

Maybe there are some pieces of software that are best open, and others that are best not open? Or maybe the lesson of Xfee86 is that you can't be a a**hole to people that are smarter and better funded than you and keep control of your project.

Fourth quarter revenue of $245 million, up 25% year-over-year
Fourth quarter subscription revenue of $209 million, up 24% year-over-year
For the full year, total revenue was $909.3 million, an increase of 22% over the prior year